We can't criticize everything

[Jeffret]

One critical part of my strategy for having a good relationship with my wife is to acknowledge when the church does actual good or improves. I don't have to lie. There's been enough to comment on so far.

I'm totally in agreement that we need to adapt our communication and tone depending upon the audience. I wouldn't be nearly so critical about the Church's new leaders when talking with believing friends and family. In those conversations I would more willingly praise these steps and downplay or ignore my larger criticisms at the minimal gains. I don't think that's disingenuous in any fashion, but instead improves relationships and provides possibilities for more dialogue and understanding.

As deacon blues wrote,

As a middle school teacher (now retired) I was periodically reminded that we need to praise our students more than criticize them. We definitely should respond positively to progress in the Church, no matter what degree of activity we practice.

I can praise these steps to the members who are involved. I can share with them their hopes for improvement.


I pondered over why I feel so strongly about criticizing the Church in this regards, though. I think didyoumythme kind of hits the answer, though somewhat obliquely,

There are much bigger issues than lack of diversity for me, so this is just a “oh, that’s cool” moment. I would be happier to see diversity of thought, but every new guy just continues to kiss butt and toe the line. Uchtdorf was the only glimmer of hope....but got demoted for being too honest.

In contrast, I don't know that there are any larger issues than the lack of diversity for me. As I've mentioned before, I'm not terribly concerned by the Church's history or Joseph's misdeeds. I'm much more concerned about the Church's now and foremost in that is its lack of diversity in its leadership and its reluctance to move forward. I'm much less concerned with Joseph Smith's relationship with Fanny Alger than I am with Joseph Bishop's relationship with his unnamed victims. I'm much less concerned with Bishop's actions than I am with those of his enablers in the top church leadership. All of these, Joseph Smith, Joseph Bishop, and the enablers are directly tied to this lack of diversity and there will be no significant changes until significantly more diversity is incorporated.

Suppose that, in contrast to what is explained in the CES Letter, a document were found that indicated that Joseph Smith claimed to have received the sealing power before his affair with Fanny Alger. Or suppose that we found documentation demonstrating that nasty little affair never happened. Would we then herald that as a great step forward? Would we praise Joseph? (My answer: No. Joseph still has plenty to answer for. I'm not terribly bothered by Joseph's many marriages, as long as they were consensual. The abuses of power, though, and the total dishonesty involved are very incriminatory.)

I can praise the Church for going a little bit out of their norm in selecting their new leaders. I agree that's a step forward. But while they've made that step, the gulf to where they need to get has widened considerably. Their next opportunity for making another step may be several years out, as the gulf continually widens.

[Thoughtful]

I think my big problem is that deep down inside i want out, like for realsies out, but I don't want to be alone. If the church did everything I wanted, then maybe I wouldn't want to be out, who knows. What has happened is that they have done just enough to re-vitalize many of those around me so that their interest and devotion has been rekindled.

I guess it feels much more like a lose-lose compromise than a win-win solution. So yeah, there have been some moves in the right direction but to what end? Is it to appease just enough to draw this out longer? If so then yes, in some ways this just makes things worse. Like a war where the other side can talk peace long enough to build more weapons and keep oppressing their people, just not as much as before. Maybe I am just bitter, I suppose, but this does not excite me.

Solidarity.

[Bremguy]

The one thing that bothers me about most of the GA, is the lack of any real theological training. Sure, it is nice to see they have MBA, etc. etc. However, the Church should not be run like a business, but it is.

But the 2 new guys are a step in the right direction. A friend of mine said, at least the church is in the 70's now, not the 50's like before.

[azflyer]

I attended priesthood session last night and was pleased with how that meeting was used by Nelson. It was very different than previous meetings. I was also quite surprised with the changes. It takes balls to demote your most faithful group of supporters.

I'm glad to know I wasn't the only one on this board in attendance. I must say, the meeting was spectacular. The way we ended with the standing group by group, and then singing was very powerful.

[Jeffret]

I must say, the meeting was spectacular. The way we ended with the standing group by group, and then singing was very powerful.

Since I've been so critical on this thread, I wanted to comment on a few areas that I think have been improvements or that have potential.

I didn't see / hear any of conference but from the discussion, it appears that Nelson led meeting management much better. Some of the sessions, notably when he introduced changes, were even thematic and organized from speaker to speaker. That's an improvement over anything I've seen in a long time.

I'm very surprised to see them announce actual changes in GC. It's been a long time since that has happened. That allowed them to try and get some explanation and justification out.

I think the shift from VT / HT to ministering has some potential for improvement. It could be a significant change, depending upon how it's actually implemented. My guess though is that it's going to end up being "same program -- different name". That's too bad, because it could definitely do with updating.

The aggregation of all men into a single priesthood quorum makes sense. Doctrinally, I don't know how that works out. It seems to have some potential implications to church hierarchy and scripture that may be problematic. In some areas where the church is smaller, I think this change could be quite helpful. In Utah, I don't understand the gain. It's unusual for the church to introduce a change that isn't targeted at Utah. I think this change will bear some improvements but overall, it's hard to see just what it's going to accomplish.

[TestimonyLost]

I'm always crossing this line with my wife. If she had it her way, I would never say anything critical about the church ever again. I do my best but sometimes I just can't help myself.

However, amongst ourselves at least, I think we need to be careful not to give the church too much of a pass. If it were any other organization that had never had anyone but a white male in its most powerful positions, at best we'd give them a "bout damn time," right? That's about the best I can do.

[slavereeno]

I'm very surprised to see them announce actual changes in GC. It's been a long time since that has happened. That allowed them to try and get some explanation and justification out.

The mission age changes seem to be the most recent to me. That was done by TSM in Oct 2012, so its been over 5 years. I am not certain there have been any significant changes since then.

[azflyer]

I didn't see / hear any of conference but from the discussion, it appears that Nelson led meeting management much better. Some of the sessions, notably when he introduced changes, were even thematic and organized from speaker to speaker. That's an improvement over anything I've seen in a long time.

You are spot on here. Everything felt coordinated. It actually helped me not fall asleep as there was a direction and a theme to everything that was being discussed. Monson was a nice man, but it is very evident that Nelson has much better administrative skills.

[azflyer]

The aggregation of all men into a single priesthood quorum makes sense. Doctrinally, I don't know how that works out. It seems to have some potential implications to church hierarchy and scripture that may be problematic. In some areas where the church is smaller, I think this change could be quite helpful. In Utah, I don't understand the gain. It's unusual for the church to introduce a change that isn't targeted at Utah. I think this change will bear some improvements but overall, it's hard to see just what it's going to accomplish.

If the quorums get too big, they'll just split into two Elder's Quorums. I've been in a ward with two EQ's before. I suspect that might be happening a little more frequently in the future. If that does happen, the guidance is to maintain a good demographic balance between the two quorums. i.e. they aren't supposed to put all the old guys in one quorum and the young guys in the other.

[alas]

The aggregation of all men into a single priesthood quorum makes sense. Doctrinally, I don't know how that works out. It seems to have some potential implications to church hierarchy and scripture that may be problematic. In some areas where the church is smaller, I think this change could be quite helpful. In Utah, I don't understand the gain. It's unusual for the church to introduce a change that isn't targeted at Utah. I think this change will bear some improvements but overall, it's hard to see just what it's going to accomplish.

If the quorums get too big, they'll just split into two Elder's Quorums. I've been in a ward with two EQ's before. I suspect that might be happening a little more frequently in the future. If that does happen, the guidance is to maintain a good demographic balance between the two quorums. i.e. they aren't supposed to put all the old guys in one quorum and the young guys in the other.

I wish there was a way of splitting RS into two smaller groups. In Utah wards, the RS can be 80+. For introverts, this big of a group is simply impossible to participate or get anything out of. The group is just so big that participation is never more than the same five people. I always envied my DH because his 3rd hour group was usually less than half the size of RS and he seemed to enjoy the discussion while all I could stand to do was hide in a corner. For years, I went into the gospel essentials class because it was less than 20 people and I was not overwhelmed by the size of the group.

But the church never seems to consider that half the population are introverts and consider our needs.

[Bremguy]

The aggregation of all men into a single priesthood quorum makes sense. Doctrinally, I don't know how that works out. It seems to have some potential implications to church hierarchy and scripture that may be problematic. In some areas where the church is smaller, I think this change could be quite helpful. In Utah, I don't understand the gain. It's unusual for the church to introduce a change that isn't targeted at Utah. I think this change will bear some improvements but overall, it's hard to see just what it's going to accomplish.

If the quorums get too big, they'll just split into two Elder's Quorums. I've been in a ward with two EQ's before. I suspect that might be happening a little more frequently in the future. If that does happen, the guidance is to maintain a good demographic balance between the two quorums. i.e. they aren't supposed to put all the old guys in one quorum and the young guys in the other.

I wish there was a way of splitting RS into two smaller groups. In Utah wards, the RS can be 80+. For introverts, this big of a group is simply impossible to participate or get anything out of. The group is just so big that participation is never more than the same five people. I always envied my DH because his 3rd hour group was usually less than half the size of RS and he seemed to enjoy the discussion while all I could stand to do was hide in a corner. For years, I went into the gospel essentials class because it was less than 20 people and I was not overwhelmed by the size of the group.

But the church never seems to consider that half the population are introverts and consider our needs.

I don't see why an enlightened Bishop doesn't split up the RS into managable units. I haven't read any where it is not allowed.
I know I would, It might make things a little better for everyone.

[hmb]

As a middle school teacher (now retired) ...

I'm so jealous. I'm a middle school teacher on the edge of "burnout." I envy your retirement. Must search for more positives!!! I only have a year or two left. That light is sometimes visible.

I try to think of positives with the church. I can really only do so on a more local level, and that is marginal. So many of the people are wonderful. Leaders are hit and miss. I used to think that the higher ups sacrificed so much. I used to think of it, on a balance, as 80kg of positive against 20kg of negative. After all, even men of God are not perfect. Now it's 15% pos against 85% neg. I don't criticize everything, but I do criticize most of it.

[Rob4Hope]

As a middle school teacher (now retired) ...

I'm so jealous. I'm a middle school teacher on the edge of "burnout." I envy your retirement. Must search for more positives!!! I only have a year or two left. That light is sometimes visible.

I try to think of positives with the church. I can really only do so on a more local level, and that is marginal. So many of the people are wonderful. Leaders are hit and miss. I used to think that the higher ups sacrificed so much. I used to think of it, on a balance, as 80kg of positive against 20kg of negative. After all, even men of God are not perfect. Now it's 15% pos against 85% neg. I don't criticize everything, but I do criticize most of it.

I use the think about the sacrifice of the higher-ups as well. They give up their lucrative jobs, their circumstances change, and their retirement (being able to quit and relax) basically ends. But then I think of their book deals, the worship they receive virtually everywhere they go, the POWER they wield, etc. Not a single one of them ever has to worry about paying bills, getting medical treatment for themselves or close family members, and frankly, I think that when they are done with their traveling circuits, they DO get downtime.

I don't feel all that sympathetic for them because I know, personally, some people who are down and out, and work every chance they can to stay afloat. And, those people are told to pay their tithing, even if they can't make ends meet.

Nah...my sympathy is gone for the higher-ups.

I agree there are some locals that really do try to live Christ-centered lives. They love those around them, and one of the ways I know it is because they weep with those who weep and they smile broadly when they hear of others OUTSIDE of themselves making it big or getting a good break.

[Random]

Both are still "white" professionals. No dark skinned or black apostle has been called. Not that it is necessary to prove a point and satisfy the world, but both new apostles aren't representatives of minorities.

I totally agree.